Archive for the ‘Federal regulations’ Category

Cash for Convicts?

August 27, 2009

You heard it. Your hard earned tax dollars are even being spent on convicts. Second source.

Advertisements

Health Care and Competition

August 25, 2009

John Stossel writes about competition and health care.

Cato Institute Commentary on Obama’s Regulations

July 3, 2009

President Obama thinks the solution to every problem is more government… but that theory breaks down against a problem caused by government regulations.

Check out Cato Institute’s commentary on our financial problems.

How Actual Free Market Capitalism Would Save Healthcare

June 17, 2009

Healthcare has saved so many lives, it is about time that something saved it.(and as the past has proven, it isn’t the government that can do the saving!)

John Stossel writes about it.

America Becoming Unsafe for the Successful?

June 14, 2009

“Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen.” President Obama warned CEOs of financial institutions. “The public isn’t buying that. My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks.”

And it’s true, too. Employees who were supposed to receive bonuses at AIG have received many vulgar death threats, some even hiring guards to protect their homes.

What inspires this kind of fear? A mob. What inspires a mob? It takes charisma. It takes a repeated message, that someone greedy or successful is responsible for everyone else’s problems… Let’s look back in history.

“Yet formerly Germany, without blinking an eyelid, for whole decades admitted these Jews by the hundred thousand. But now… when the nation is no longer willing to be sucked dry by these parasites, on every side one hears nothing but laments.” – Adolf Hitler, in his speech on September 12th, 1938

And now look into the present.

“This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed. Under these circumstances, it’s hard to understand how derivative traders at AIG warranted any bonuses, much less $165 million in extra pay. I mean, how do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat?(…)excuse me, I’m choked up with anger here(…)” – Barack Obama, in his speech on March 16, 2009

The speeches share a common tone – anger at a particularly upper class or rich group of people. Class warfare. According to Obama and his liberal allies, the wealthy are the cause of our problems. The wealthy are taking care of themselves. The wealthy are ‘sucking us dry’ and giving themselves ‘$165 million in extra pay’.

And Barney Frank says that the AIG bonuses were “rewarding failure”. Isn’t it ironic that he would say something like that? After spending nearly 2 trillion in bailouts for companies that were failing, he is upset about 280 million in bonuses spent on employees that were part of a failing company. Didn’t he know that employees in a failing company would get money when congress bailed out AIG with taxpayer dollars? Didn’t he know that the bailout would ‘reward incompetence’? Perhaps he forgot that momentarily when he was signing the 700 billion TARP into law…

That means that Mr. Frank and his liberal allies have spent 2,000,000,000,000 on buying up failures, and he’s upset that AIG spent 280,000,000 of that on failures. If you do the division, that means he outspent AIG by 7142:1 in taxpayer dollars. He and his liberal allies spent seven thousand times as much on failures! How very intriguing that he would be angry about rewarding incompetence. Perhaps we should lower his salary, as he is obviously ‘incompetent’ when it comes to basic arithmetic.

Vote Democrat and you can help cap the successful people’s salaries who ‘must have cheated to get there'(or had signed contracts including bonuses from over a year ago with AIG…), vote Hitler and you can eliminate their lives and liberty altogether. We are on a slippery slope to class warfare, and the pitchforks are already being sharpened. The trouble is, once the wealthy are out of the way, who is there to stop the government from bearing down on the middle and lower classes? Is shared misery in a socialist system what Americans really want? Do we really want to end up like India?

The difference between us and India is that we were founded on protection of God-given rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all. It doesn’t guarentee us happiness – how can that be possible in such an evil world? But when the government honors those basic rights, it protects our lives and liberty – allowing us to pursue our gifts and desires without excessive taxation or any redistribution of our long work hours.

But today in this country, the mob rule government redistributes the long hours of workaholic CEOs and careful planning to other people. It steals 39 percent of the most wealthiest peoples’ lives to give to the poorest peoples’ lives(Robin Hood style, minus the stealing from wealthy officials). And since the government has been waging a war on poverty for nearly 80 years, people don’t feel the responsibility to help eachother. Did you know that 70% of your money that goes to welfare is lost in government overhead, paperwork, and government employee salary? But yet Americans no longer feel responsibility to help other people by donating to private charities that only lose 5% in overhead. “It’s not my problem” syndrome is becoming more and more common among Americans(especially liberals!)

Let me leave you with a few suggestions: Don’t be jealous. Vote for basic protections for everyone, whether they are successful or not, and vote against government officials who redistribute your wealth to either failing corporations or to massively wasteful welfare programs. Give to charity! Love your neighbor. And most of all, don’t rely on the government to solve your problems.

Leave Us Alone Already!

May 23, 2009

You know, I don’t understand why the government can’t just leave people alone… Yes, obviously you have to have law enforcement… but look at all this excess stuff. Does any of it solve the problem it sets out to solve? No. (education, welfare, FDA, AMA…) They should stop stealing people’s money, and let the consumers hold education, food, and medicine responsible for pricing themselves! Prices would drop without excessive regulation!

Did you know that the way the regulations are, only 40 in 10,000 drugs gets through? That drives prices up for healthcare a great deal, and it doesn’t even stop all the bad drugs! Private institutions and watchdog groups do a much better job.(like eBay’s rating system, i.e)

I don’t think I have to tell you how much of a mess public education is.

70% of government charity is lost in overhead, whereas in private charity where the citizens keep the institution accountable only lose 5% in overhead. Ronald Reagan illustrated it quite nicely in his 1964 speech when he pointed out that “if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally(…)we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year.(…)Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.”

Some quick mathematics shows that if 10% of someone’s income would go to government charity, if we abolished welfare and allowed people to choose for themselves, to get the same amount we’d only need 3.15% of that person’s income in private charity to have the same effect on poverty. And honestly, I don’t think Obama really cares about poverty more than he cares about votes. He already has much of America’s poor enthralled with him emotionally. However, they don’t realize what he really wants to do. When he reduces charitable deductions, you can tell what he really wants: Money and power.

Finally, can you imagine if everyone had food insurance, and food assistance programs from the government or employers autmoatically? You’d just buy everything you felt like buying, without looking at the price! And the people at the front desk would sell it to you, too, smiling merrily even though they don’t know the price either. You swipe the card, and off you go. What would happen to food prices? They would skyrocket! Insurance premiums would continue to climb to meet the expenses. Who would be gettting rich off of it? Yes, that’s right, the government that taxes the food and the businesses that sell the food. Ever wonder why surgeons and doctors make so much more money than the average income?

If we want to reduce the price of medicine, and increase the quality, public healthcare is not the way to go! We must eliminate government regulation, intervention and taxes on healthcare. Encourage private competition to drive prices down and quality up. Look at the other things that the government controls the service of, and ask yourself: Do I really want the government to have that much of direct control on my health?

Pie, Bread, and Socialism

April 24, 2009

Yum, pie. Just thinking of pie makes my mouth water.

Do you have pie? I do. I just had a big slice of blueberry pie a little while ago, and let me tell you: It was incredibly delicious.

I’m sorry if you don’t have any pie. It’s just a fact of life: Not everyone has pie. There are probably some people in poverty stricken countries that have never even heard of pie. Their ignorance of pie could perhaps be explained by the fact that most of them don’t eat on a daily basis.

Poverty stricken countries share one trait – a massive government. At first, you know, it always starts with some kind of a revolution(peaceful or violent), with the charismatic leaders claiming how everyone would have equal rights to the pie under his regime. It always seems like such a great idea for awhile. But look at the USSR now – look at India now. The government wanted to give everyone pie, but somewhere along the line this envisioned Utopia was broken.

Why is that, you might ask? Well, let’s look at this from an economics viewpoint. And to make it easy to think about, let’s think in terms of pie.

Think about the little red hen. Let’s say her master(whom I will refer to as ‘Farmer John’)  gave her complete economic freedom. She went out, found some wheat, and then looked for business partners in making some pie. Unfortunately, no other farm animal wanted to do any work. So she made just one pie alone. Yet in the end, everyone wanted to eat some pie, even though there was less of it due to the other animals not contributing. Farmer John didn’t let them take her pie from her, though, so she ate most of it and gave some to Farmer John as a tax. The other animals saw how the little red hen was rewarded for making pie, so they helped make pie in the future, and there was more than enough for everyone, since Farmer John didn’t confiscate more than 10% of their pie, no matter how much pie they made.

Now think of what would happen if Farmer John said ‘Everything belongs to everyone!'(cough, cough, socialism, cough) Well, the little red hen, being the industrious young fowl she is, would go out, find some wheat, and then look for business partners in making some pie. Of course, the other farm animals are still as lazy as ever. She goes ahead and makes the pie alone, but lo and behold, once again the other farm animals wanted to eat her pie. This time Farmer John forced her not only to give him some as a tax, but to share the remainder with the other animals. The little red hen didn’t like this treatment of her, and began to resent it. Soon she began eating bird feed given to her by Farmer John and quit making  pie altogether.

Now, since she quit making pie and giving some of it to Farmer John as a tax, Farmer John was no longer able to afford bird feed. So the whole farm yard began to starve. In order to stop himself from starving, Farmer John eventually used some animals as slaves, and ate the others.(cough cough, like the slave camps in the late USSR) Of course, in order to keep his animals from getting out, he had to set up a fence, and hire people to watch the animals(cough cough, NKVD, tight border control in the late USSR)

And that’s how a big government leads to the decay of an entire nation,  and eventually to people in those countries starving and in being in poverty.

The moral of the story: When everyone owns the pie, there is less of it. And the only way to even make such a pie is slavery.(required community service hours, anyone?)

Equal Opportunity or Equal Circumstances?

April 20, 2009

“Some enslaved men wish to become free. Some free men wish to lose responsibility.  However, without responsibility there is no freedom… Upon fighting for equal opportunity, slaves are rewarded with capitalism. Upon fighting for equal circumstances, free men are rewarded with enslavement.”

The nature of the world is not fair. Not everyone is born into the USA. Some are born into poverty stricken countries with heavy handed governments. Some die at a young age due to starvation in those very same countries.

There is no way to guarantee equal circumstances for all without enslaving everyone. The only way to make everyone equal is to treat them all as slaves, and take away all their rights.

However, there is a way to give everyone equal rights. The Declaration of Independence talks of ‘certain, unalienable Rights’. It does not describe ‘Happiness’ as a right, because the authors knew that it isn’t possible to guarantee everyone happiness, but rather they say of the rights ” that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

Happiness is something only the individual can attain, as only the individual knows what will make him happy. The truth is that a small percentage of the population(the government), cannot work hard enough or long enough to give all people happiness. People have to make people happy. In order for the government to even attempt to supply for everyone’s needs, they must also enslave everyone to their work forces at the same time. And as the USSR has proven, such a plan results in millions of deaths.

As the fantasy novel author Terry Pratchett so aptly puts it in his novel Witches Abroad: “You can’t go around building a better world for people. Only people can build a better world for people. Otherwise it’s just a cage.”

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

March 17, 2009

Talk of the AIG bonuses are all over the televised news, internet blogs, and even Facebook.

What’s so exciting about this money? Why, it’s 165 million dollars! That’s 165,000,000. Alot of money, isn’t it? In fact, through some simple division, those bonsues cost each taxpayer  55 cents(165,000,000/303,824,640 American citizens). Outrageous! You know that quarter you found on the street the other day, and the next quarter you find? Both will go to AIG employees in bonuses. And you’ll still owe them a nickel. How dare they spend this money? Aren’t you glad that President Obama is pursuing every legal path to block those bonuses?

Actually, if you think about it, President Obama has also been spending taxpayer money through a binding contract with the American people. In fact, just recently, he signed a bill worth 787 billion dollars. (that’s 787,000,000,000) That bill has created $2590.31 in national debt for you and each of your children. (787,000,000,000/303,824,640 American citizens) You know that quarter you found on the street the other day? Throw it back. It won’t help in paying that sum off.

In fact, since you’re the government’s cosigner on every loan they take, you owe an equal share of 11,019,358,248,648 in national debt. Your equal share is payable in a friendly payment plan called inflation. You and each of your children owe $36,368.81 in government created debt. If you want to buy something, you had better buy it now, because you won’t be able to afford it once they raise taxes and start printing more money. But just think, if it weren’t for our government borrowing so much money, and making so many regulations, where would the US economy be now? Read Stossel’s article about it.

So next time you hear President Obama making angry remarks about ‘corporate greed’ at AIG, just think of what he himself has done, and of the 3.6 trillion dollar budget he proposed recently. Can anyone say ‘The pot calling the kettle black‘?

As long as you’re here, be sure to thank the few congressmen who voted against increasing your debt.



 


									

Economists agree… or do they?

March 14, 2009

President Obama recently announced that “There is no disagreement that we need action by our a government, a recovery plan that will help to jump-start our economy.”

Well, President Obama, that simply isn’t true.

There are actually over 250 economists that recently denounced big government spending, increased national debt, more government regulations on the economy, and higher tax burdens as a solution to our economic woes.